After Texas stabbing, will knives be banned, too?

At least 14 people were injured, two of them critically, by a knife-wielding student at a community college in Texas on Tuesday. I assume our ever-vigilant Democratic legislators are already drafting bills banning knives with blades extending beyond some arbitrary length, and particularly scary-looking knives. I mean, what purpose do they serve?

If you need new steak knives, now might be a good time to stock up. And watch for a ban on hammers, coming soon. And so on.

Mark Vanderbrook, Morrison

This letter was published in the April 11 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I just knew some genius would say something like this. Mark, remind me how many people died as a result of that horrific act?

And really? The day after the stabbings, you’re using the stabbings to make political points?

ThePyro

With you on your first part, Tbone. But hold up on the second line…Folks of all political stripes and outlooks jump on the tragedy bandwagon in this amount of time. Mr. Vanderbrook isn’t the first to do this, and he definitely will not be the last.

thor

Mark, you put the whole debate into perspective. When will we begin focusing on the real problem, people.

toohip

yeah man! It’s just people who are the problem. . .not military style weaponry SOLELY designed to kill massive number of people! Keep up the faith, thor. . without it, you’re just left with reality.

thor

At least you are consistent.

toohip

less so then you! but maybe I was suggesting “predictable?”

Fowler

According to FBI statistics for 2011, 1,587 people were murdered with knives. 323 were murdered with rifles (“assault weapons” if you prefer). So if we must ban assault weapons because they are so deadly, the case against knives is five times more compelling if you’re counting actual deaths. Unless of course you prefer to ignore the statistics and just focus on something else, like how evil assault weapons look.

MickeyD

I agree with you, thor. We need to ban people.

I can hear the chants now. NO MORE PEOPLE!! NO MORE PEOPLE!!

Or maybe: DOWN WITH PEOPLE!! DOWN WITH PEOPLE!!

thor

You may be on to something. The logistics may be rough, but I’m sure it can be done. When do we start?

toohip

You already have! Do I have to mention your support of people of the “gay, color, ethnic, mental health, handicapped, or other “not like me”. . persuasion? (talk about a straight line!)

peterpi

You could form a folk group called that. They could sing “This Land is Not Your Land”, songs like that.

Dano2

How inane. The attacker killed….oh….zero. There are how many knife massacres in the USA? And how many gun massacres?

Ludicrous, these lame false equivalencies. How embarrassing it must be to have nothing better than this.

Best,

D

toohip

You forgot about the “drive-by knifing ” or “the guy that brought a knife to a gun fight”

This is all these types have to argue with any more – false equivalencies or “straw man” arguments because the arguments. . and the bodies. . are stacking up against their pro-gun agenda.

Robtf777

“After Texas stabbing, will knives be banned, too?”

=========

When guns are banned……those who want to go on a mass killing spree will always find something else to use.

Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun. Jack the Ripper didn’t use a gun. This guy didn’t use a gun. The fact is that guns are noisy. Knives……are silent…….unless the killer is a psycho who yells and screams as he slashes people.

Liberals want to ban guns because Liberals have tunnel vision and are near-sighted. They think that banning guns will end the mass slaughters. Well…..Timothy McVeigh, Jack the Ripper, and this guy…….proves that Liberals don’t have a clue as to what the problem really is.

The problem is not guns, or knives, or fertilizer……it’s people. It’s people brought up since the Liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s took hold…….when God, Jesus, and the Bible were banned from our public schools and were replaced by…..Liberalism.

Liberalism is responsible for the Sexual Revolution that directly lead to the 50 million abortions……100 million CURRENT cases of STDs in this country……with another 20 MILLION new cases every year…….and the Entire HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The problem is Liberalism……that has DEFENDED since 1973 the “right” for “people” to look upon a living human life that is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing…….with CONTEMPT and DISGUST……and deem it to be “worthy” to kill said living human life if doing so……solves personal problems……or just makes them feel better to do so.

It is NOT God…..nor Jesus…..nor the Bible……that “justifies” the actions or beliefs of the Aurora Theater Shooter, the Connecticut School Shooter, the Columbine Killers, the Fort Hood Shooter, the Shopping Mall Shooter……or the Texas College Slasher.

The problem is NOT guns……because guns have been a part of this country for all of its existence…..and even before.

The problem is…..the change that happened in the 1960s and 1970s……when Liberals replaced God with…….Atheism……which encouraged sexual immorality……which encouraged immorality in general……which lead to the EXPLOSION in Abortions, STDs. HIV/AIDS…….and the seemingly apparent EXPLOSION in the frequency of MASS MURDERS and ATTEMPTED MASS MURDERS……..because far too many “psychos” have learned too well the Ideology of Liberalism that DEFENDS Abortion: Some lives…..of living human beings……do not really matter……and can be slaughtered…..”just because” they want to.

toohip

jeez, Robt .. get some help!

reinhold23

Seconded!

guest1

I think he missed out on the Sexual Revolution and is pissed off!

toohip

it’s something he’s not “getting!”

RTDennis

“When guns are banned……those who want to go on a mass killing spree will always find something else to use. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun. Jack the Ripper didn’t use a gun.”

Bobby, I’m pretty certain that the actions of Timothy McVeigh and Jack the Ripper were also banned. Using your reasoning, since those bans did not prevent them from killing, I assume you would be in favor of lifting those bans as well??

toohip

McVeigh’s actions led to the regulations on fertilizer – another inanimate object not designed for killing but for positive use. Jack, used a knife, but it wasn’t a “mass incident” because knives are ineffective in mass killings at one time, but more effective when used one killing at a time. Maybe why they weren’t regulated.

toohip

Gee, like we didn’t see this coming! First “mass knifing” since..? I guess the fact no one was killed though 14 were attacked doesn’t suggest the difference in the deadliness of knives vs guns? Especially the military style assault weapon ones with large capacity magazines. So is there a correlation here suggesting assault knives vs hunting knives? The knife was a “razor knife” or box cutter. .. adding to the inanimate object argument. But this “knife” wasn’t designed to kill people, but to serve as a utility tool. I’d be glad to compare the “razor knife” killings to gun killings?

reinhold23

The interesting thing about knives isn’t that they’re not designed to kill people, as evidenced by this Texas criminal’s non-existant body-count.

reinhold23

The interesting thing about knives isn’t that they’re not designed to kill people, as evidenced by this Texas criminal’s non-existant body-count.

primafacie

No, they’re designed to slice or sever. Whereas a gun — if I may infer where you were headed — is designed to propel a projectile at great speed.

reinhold23

And what kills more effectively: the high-speed projectile or the slicer?

primafacie

Having not tried either, I’d guess the projectile. But some projectiles don’t kill at all, from what I understand.

But I kinda think you knew that.

ThePyro

Depends on how you define “effectively”. On a “per use” basis, knives do – even when used without skill, but with intent, a blade is way more effective. On a “general use” basis, guns do – for all sorts of direct and indirect reasons.

Learned that from a Navy S.E.A.L. – they kinda know. 😉

primafacie

Interesting knowledge, Pyro.

toohip

Really? You’re suggesting a knife blade is more effective at killing, even without skills but intent than a firearm? I guess why a knife is your “home defense weapon of choice? (for thor it’s the bow and arrow!;o). So your SEAL friend, and what movies convince you that knife is a more effective killing weapon? or did he mean “silent” killing weapon?!
Sometimes Pryro, you can be really obtuse in some intellectual objective.

ThePyro

Since you asked (and the only movies involved were his training videos, which I’ve never seen):
Give somebody a knife and half a chance, and they have at least nine ways of killing a person outright, they have a high probability of doing so and they don’t have to be all that good at wielding the weapon to do it. Granted, they have to be in close quarters to do so.

Give somebody a gun and half a chance, they have four ways of killing someone outright, have a lower probability of doing so and must have at least some training to be able to achieve that goal. Granted, the weapon can be used at distance, but the distance reduces the probability of success.

The chances of “secondary death” (i.e., being killed by excessive bleeding, infection, organ shutdown, etc.) are about the same for both.

Hence, the knife is a more efficient weapon: More ways to kill in a given instance, higher probability of success and can be wielded by an untrained user.

Just because it’s more efficient doesn’t change any of the arguments that are made in the gun debate. If you look further up this post, I agreed with Tbone that knife violence is a bad comparison to gun violence.

Is it a good home defensive weapon? No – never said it was, either. I prefer to use a porch light and couple of good locksets for home defense. I’ve been trying to get the neighborhood skunk to hang around, too, but the dog next door keeps chasing him off.

I may be obtuse, but at least I’m acute about it.

peterpi

Terrific last line, LOL — and I just got the pun. Slow reflexes today.
We lock our doors, and have two cats, but we joke that if a burglar ever entered our apartment, one of the cats would run and hide, the other cat would welcome the burglar, want to be petted, offer the burglar a shot of Scotch, and make the burglar feel at home.
I don’t think our apartment building manager would appreciate us having a skunk.

ThePyro

I knew you’d triangulate in on it, pete. 😉

peterpi

Equilaterally!

peterpi

Minor suggestion for your punchline:
I may be obtuse, but at least I’m acutely aware of it.
Better grammar.

ThePyro

I was playing off “I’m cute about it”…but maybe that’s just better as a verbal punch. You’re definitely right about the written version.

peterpi

Even an unskilled person can hack someone enough times with a knife to cause them to bleed to death.
Knives are used close in, one on one, where any margin of error still leaves the possibility of hitting something vital, like a major blood vessel or organ. Being close in, repeated blows will result in repeated wounds.
Guns, when fired from a distance, if there’s error in aim, the bullets can go wide.
Pyro’s SEAL friend may have been thinking along those lines.

ThePyro

You hit a bullseye with your response, pete.

Aw, jeezoots…not I’m gonna be accused for glorifying the gun culture…

guest1

I think most people can still hit a body from 5-10 feet away. But how times can they stab someone from 5-10 ft away??? Look at the 4 year old who shot his friend. And someone being attacked with a knife still has the chance to run away or fight. How so with a gun? And you all are assuming the shooter is always a “novice”.

guest1

Plus you have to get close to a person to do serious damage. Not so with a pistol or rifle.

toohip

not if you’re a SEAL or Pyro! Even thor chooses a “projectile!” (arrow)

thor

He used an exacto knife, that’s why. They are used for cratfs, not cutting things or dressing a deer or gutting a fish.

reinhold23

Seems you agree this particular letter to the editor is nonsense.

toohip

no, haven’t you been reading “the word according to thor?” He has frequently stated “the only difference between the Aurora shooter and the Houston stabber. . was the choice of weapon.” (excluding the number of people killed and “seriously/permanently” injured). thor believes exacto knives are deadly killing weapons; not so much firearms. :o)

thor

Thanks for speaking for me. When you read a post, do the words translate the way they are written. I ask because many of your replies do not mirror what is written. But I will try to break down your take on what i wrote. 1. I did not frequently state “”the only difference between the Aurora shooter and the Houston stabber. . was the choice of weapon.”” I did say it once, and I stand by it. You might take the time to address that instead of making something up. Question: can you? 2. Exacto knives are not killing weapons, they are for crafts. That is what I wrote and I stand by that also. What do you stand by? Making things up? The fiction section is found in the entertainment section of the paper. Its called “The Comics.”

peterpi

I’m surprised Mr. Vanderbrook didn’t call for specially trained teachers to be armed with knives.
Vanderbrook could also have called for conceal-knife-carry permits. After all, if an attacker isn’t certain who is or is not carrying a knife, that uncertainty will fill him or her with fear and dread, and prevent crime.
A society armed with knives is a polite society.
Every member of the Swiss Army is required to have a Swiss Army knife on them at all times, and look how low their crime rate is.

toohip

uhhh, I believe teachers to have exacto knives? At least the art teachers . . and not one of them has suffered a school shooting in their classroom – PROOF! that arming teachers with exacto knives (good guy with an exacto knife) prevents school shootings!
/sar

Mark, in your short sightedness, I guess you failed to notice that knives are already banned in a number of places including airplanes, courtrooms, and classrooms in most schools and college campuses. It seems that there is no amendment protecting our rights to keep and bear knives. So what knife rights are you talking about?

3.141592

Didn’t President Obama talk about bayonets in one of the debates? I think he included them as obsolete arms even though they are still standard issue to the Marines.

toohip

and as a former Marine, I can say this. . the Marines use antiquated and obsolete equipment. Look at their uniform – circa WWII. When I was in we were still eating C rations or MCIs, and using Korean War-era equipment. Hence the clinging to bayonets. Ask the modern soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan who have had to resort to one on one combat situations if that bladed bayonet is an effective killing/stopping weapon! Where’s that inanimate baseball bat when you need it!

peterpi

Also, this may be urban legend, but I thought I read that the law forbids people carrying knives with blades longer than 3 inches?

thor

Only on planes.

toohip

and box cutters meet that airline requirement, yet I’m betting? they’re still not allowed on planes we cause we’re a directly reactive society and since the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, it’s the same reason we have to take off our shoes. Then we started making jokes about underwear bombers. . and almost went down that same road!

peterpi

I wear ankle-foot orthotics, and I loathe having to take off my shoes. Slip-ons don’t work for me, they don’t provide enough support.
Regarding almost going down the same road, years ago, there was a New Yorker magazine cartoon showing a planeload of nude passengers. The caption was, “I see the need for airplane security, but these new regs are ridiculous!”

toohip, I agree with most of what you say. However, to be grammatically correct, you should know that it’s “would have” and “could have” not “would of” and “could of”.

peterpi

Your Warsaw Ghetto remark I’ve actually heard dozens of times in the gun context. “If every Jew taken had killed one Nazi, why Hitler would have cowered in his boots!”
a) It shows total lack of context, total lack of understanding of what went on previously, maybe a total lack of reality.
b) If the Jews started fighting back, the Nazis would have escalated their tactics. Fired first.
c) It demeans the victims, and diminishes the Holocaust into being a mere debate tactic. Abortion foes do the same, IMHO.

chuck

First of all, don’t you dolts know that this individual was being sarcastic? Second, do you realize how many millions were killed with knives and swords before there were firearms. Perhaps you need a few history classes. And finally, in Africa one of the favorite means of dispatching your enemies in tribal wars is the machete (classified as a long knife).

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...